Readers' comments

The article is quite interesting, but it does not explain why regulation cases represent a 'universal benefit' and are seen with good eyes by the 40% poorest ones. Regulatory activity happens all the time in the Legislative and to different extents. One cannot claim that regulation necessarily implies universal access to a decision or procedure. Only the case analysis can point out whether or not a specific regulation represents a universal benefit. In Brazil, even though provisional cases, such as the one concerning access to medicaments are seen with very good eyes by most people, regardless of the real percentage of citizens that benefit from such a provision. I believe judicial activism has proven to be a very interesting way emerging economies are finding to tackle the problem of corruption in the Executive and in the Legislative. Even if no regulation, provision or obligation is implicit in the Constitution, Courts have proven to have the power to impose 'new' interpretations that produce boundless social and economic changes.

I agree with TE that courts in India, South Africa have been largely and rightly pro-poor . Courts Stand is perfectly justified as most of Government bureaucracy and the rich have been pretty much indifferent to their plight. Equality before Law shall not be taken too literally as the poor are in a socially and economically disadvantaged position and need special care by law and Courts. A recent verdict by Supreme Court of India can be taken as a good example in this context :

The 'Right to food' bill has been called as Impractical idea by Sharad Pawar, the present Agricultural minister of India. That speaks volumes about it. The country doesn't have the provisions to store that much of food grain. There has been many recent events where tonnes of food grains where photographed by the media in rotting conditions. The prices for the same was soaring at that time, which is an interesting co-incidence.

It's a populist move intended to capture the western audience and Indian votes by GoI, it's hailed as Ms. Sonia Gandhi's dream project by congress politicians. I am glad to hear the tone which TE has taken on this topic.

It is precisely because judges are unelected that they can speak for justice without fear or favour. They don't have to curry favours with the electorate. (Someone said it is the 'selectorate', implying a select section of society, that normally decides the course of events anywhere. Maybe courts are about the best 'selectorate' today) If justice demands that the abjectly poor be given food by the government from its revenue through a Law, the judges and the court are perhaps the most suited to say so. That politicians on their own have thought of bringing a bill for food security for the poor without any prodding from civil activists certainly colours the whole exercise : it maybe just politics more than genuine compassion. That said, we must admit that there are indeed politicians who are genuinely involved in improving the lot of the poor.
There could be “dole slurping” by the middlemen in any government funded welfare activity. The track record of the Public Distribution System for rations to the poor in India needs a lot of improvement. Steps are under way for a national ID card system relying on modern technologies of retinal imaging and so on. If this system gets fully integrated with existing ID systems and if direct cash transfers to the beneficiaries' bank accounts are ensured, the Food Security Scheme could turn out to be a big success in poverty alleviation. One also hears of plans by expert teams to evolve a system of 'inclusive banking' in India by which cell phone-enabled banking would reach nearly every citizen so that the poor don't have to travel here and there and grease the palms of the greedy to receive their food subsidy under the proposed scheme. Alongside the new scheme, the existing poverty alleviation schemes like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MNREGA) may also get streamlined.
The first lurking danger in mandating food security is this: widespread drunkenness that is already crippling rural India's labour market. If cash transfer is effected by mandate for food security, who will claim it in a family? The heavy-drinking husband or the long-suffering wife? Can it be mandated that the wife should receive it? That may not stand the test of law. If it is the husband, he would go to the ubiquitous liqour shop first with the money and then to the grocer. I am dismayed at the prospect of empowering the unproductive drunkards with cash for food given by law.
The second danger is more insidious and long term. Where is the money coming from? India's fiscal deficit and trade deficit are a double whammy already. Government borrowings will have to go up and go up substantially. We all know now what uncontrolled borrowing has done to Greece, Spain, Ireland, and the US, early on, and even the U.K. and France lately. Unfortunately some in the developing countries want to follow the footsteps of the Western market based democratic countries blindly even after seeing the present sorry state of affairs.
If my memory serves me right, recently, one member in the Lok Sabha, the lower house of the Indian Parliament, waved the latest copy of the Economist to show that the “magic of India” has waned as a destination for investment due to some recent decisions of the Courts and the Government's budget proposals. It will not be long before over-zealous parliamentarians wanting to project themselves as having fought for the passage of the law on food security flaunt the current copy of the Economist and demand vociferously that no arguments pointing out the flaws in the scheme should be entertained and that the proposed Law has the intellectual sanction of the all-knowing West on the Majesty of such a Law. I am sorry to admit that among the intelligentsia in India what appears in prestigious western journals is deemed as gospel truth. There is very little objective, on-the-ground empirical analysis of problems here in India by true indigenous scholars appearing in mainstream Indian media that is referred to or quoted by mainstream Western media.
In sum, the majesty of Law in serving the poor could be true but in practice, if developing countries are not careful in avoiding the pitfalls, they may end up worse than they are now in the medium to long term.

The emergence of robotics, with the ability of machines to make millions of products with minimal labor has fundamentally changed the economy such that the few rich enough to own the machines become obscenely wealthy, while the large number who previously would have been employed are impoverished.

I think we need to rethink the modern economy based on postmodern American principles. By following these principles, we could drastically reduce poverty and class warfare:
1. unlike economic Darwinism, The more advantaged (mentally, socially, and economically), have a duty to take care of the less advantaged without discrimination.
2. unlike Communism, everyone has a right to free choice and the fruits of their labor.
3. Unlike unbridled Capitalism, everyone should contribute to the common good equally.

By implementing these principles, the government would ensure that every person, by virtue of being human has an equal right to:
a. a free education for life to the highest level attainable.
b. a right to free health care, including mental health medication and counseling.
c. a right to both safety and freedom. i.e. Instead of a punishment based judicial system, the system would focus on protecting the public while at the same time providing prisoners with the remedial education, social counseling and mental health treatments necessary, for them to earn their way back into a socially responsible position. Rather than time based punishments, prisoners could return to society as soon as they could meet functional based criteria.
d. Everyone by virtue of being a citizen is guaranteed a minimum financial foundation. i.e. the government would provide EVERY citizen equally, (from the newborn to the most wealthy) the equivalent of whatever is defined as poverty level. i.e. the minimum needed to proved reasonable food, clothing and housing. They deserve this just by being human and living in a compassionate country. This will insure that no one is forced into crime by poverty or lack of opportunity.
e. Everyone would pay for the above equally. i.e. every source of income is taxed equally based on a percentage of income, presumably it would be fairly high, to pay for all of this, but if it included everyone, banks, mutual funds, hedge funds, insurance companies, and corporations then everyone, even the poor would have the dignity of contributing to the common good, the rich would not have the burden of being perceived as socially irresponsible, and the middle class would not be unduly burdened by the support of the social safety net.

I think such a policy would ensure that everyone on our society enjoys the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Didn't expect the Economist to take such a skeptical tone on this program. Feeding the poorest people in the world by the tens of millions sounds to my ears like a great thing, but I guess that's why I'm a radical lefty. While I get that "it is far from clear that society as whole benefits when unelected judges mandate potentially costly social spending", I think if those unelected officials are using their power to feed people (why aren't the elected officials doing that already?), is that really so unjust? I think only someone who has had 3 meals a day their entire life could possibly turn their nose up at this.